[Bug 1891336] New: Review Request: rubygem-xdg - XDG provides an interface for using XDG directory standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891336
Bug ID: 1891336 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-xdg - XDG provides an interface for using XDG directory standard Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jimtahu@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jimtahu/tmuxinator/fedora... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jimtahu/tmuxinator/fedora... Description: XDG provides an interface for using XDG directory standard Fedora Account System Username: jimtahu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891336
Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmoune@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dridi.boukelmoune@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891336
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- - No test suite here?
%check pushd .%{gem_instdir} # Run the test suite. popd
- Release should start at 1
Release: 0%{?dist}
- Should use the BSD shorthand:
License: BSD
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-xdg/review-rubygem- xdg/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rubygem-xdg-2.2.5-1.fc34.noarch.rpm rubygem-xdg-doc-2.2.5-1.fc34.noarch.rpm rubygem-xdg-2.2.5-1.fc34.src.rpm rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause rubygem-xdg.noarch: W: no-documentation rubygem-xdg-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause rubygem-xdg.src: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891336
--- Comment #4 from Micah Shennum jimtahu@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #3)
- No test suite here?
%check pushd .%{gem_instdir} # Run the test suite. popd
From what I could find, there was not a test suite back in the 2.2.5 version, or rather I could not figure out how to run it. Removed the dead check section.
- Release should start at 1
Release: 0%{?dist}
Done
- Should use the BSD shorthand:
License: BSD
Done
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jimtahu/tmuxinator/fedora... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jimtahu/tmuxinator/fedora...
Also checked spec into pagure.io at https://pagure.io/rubygem-xdg/blob/master/f/rubygem-xdg.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891336
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891336
--- Comment #6 from Micah Shennum jimtahu@gmail.com --- Fantastic, thank you. It looks like I will need to get sponsored next.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891336
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |NEW Flags|fedora-review+ | Assignee|zebob.m@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #7 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- Package never imported, resetting ticket status.
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Micah Shennum jimtahu@gmail.com has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Micah Shennum jimtahu@gmail.com's needinfo: Bug 1891336: Review Request: rubygem-xdg - XDG provides an interface for using XDG directory standard https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891336
--- Comment #9 from Micah Shennum jimtahu@gmail.com --- I never got to the point of actually getting the package depending on this squared away, thank you for the time.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com